Hollister v. Indonesian Citizenship Law

Some lawsuits filed with the intent of proving Barack Obama ineligible to be president make arguments that Barack Obama’s 4 years in Indonesia somehow erased his American citizenship.

In Philip Berg’s case, Hollister v Soetoro, we see some Indonesian laws cited. These are not as easy to find as a corresponding US law would be, but your diligent Obama Conspiracy Theorist has come up with them.

A number of claims are made in the suit for which no documentation is offered, for example the statement “All Indonesian students were required to carry government Identity cards.” Without a source, it’s not possible to verify the statement. We can’t deal with those here.

Here’s the first Indonesian law reference from Hollister:

27 Indonesia did not allow foreign students to attend their public schools in the late 1960’s or 1970’s, and any time a child was registered for a public school, their name and citizenship status was verified through the Indonesian Government. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945), Chapter 13, Law No. 62 of 1958 (all citizens of Indonesia have a right to education). The school record, attached hereto as Exhibit “B”, indicates that Soetoro’s name is “Barry Soetoro;” his nationality is “Indonesia;” and his religion as “Islam”. There was no way for Soetoro to have attended school in Jakarta, Indonesia legally unless he was an Indonesian citizen, as Indonesia was under tight rule and was a Police State. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945), Law No. 62 of 1958. These facts indicate that Soetoro is an Indonesian citizen, and therefore he is not eligible to be President of the United States.

Looking at the paragraph we see these Indonesian law claims:

Indonesia did not allow foreign students to attend their public schools in the late 1960’s or 1970’s

Any time a child was registered for a public school, their name and citizenship status was verified through the Indonesian Government

There was no way for Soetoro to have attended school in Jakarta, Indonesia legally unless he was an Indonesian citizen

No argument is provided for the truth of these claims save the Indonesian Constitution Chapter 13 and Indonesian Law No. 62 cited. Law No. 62 has nothing to do with education or identity cards, so we we’ll save that law for later. The Constitution Chapter 13 does talk about education. It says:

Chapter XIII. Education

Article 31

1. Every citizen has the right to education.

2. The government shall establish and conduct a national educational system which shall be regulated by law.

Frankly I am at a loss as to how “There was no way for Soetoro to have attended school in Jakarta, Indonesia legally unless he was an Indonesian citizen” can be inferred from this article of the Indonesian Constitution. Further there is nothing about verifying identity.

Having struck out finding any valid application of the cited Indonesian laws to Berg’s claims, we move on to the next section.

28. Under Indonesian law, when a male acknowledges a child as his son, it deems the son, in this case Soetoro, an Indonesian State citizen. Constitution of Republic of Indonesia, Law No. 62 of 1958 concerning Immigration Affairs and Indonesian Civil Code (Kitab Undang-undang Hukum Perdata) (KUHPer) (Burgerlijk Wetboek voor Indonesie).

Better luck this time because Law No. 62 does deal with citizenship. The entire law 62 is too long to paste here, but a copy in English is on the UNHCR web site for your review.

The facts are that Barack Obama’s mother married an Indonesian national (Lolo Soetoro) and that they all moved to Indonesia when Barack Obama was 6 years old.

First, Berg’s argument is predicated upon “a male acknowledges a child as his son” which doesn’t seem to apply. It was never said the Lolo Soetoro fathered Barack Obama. This law if it exists (it is not part of Law No. 62) it would reasonably be analogous to an “affidavit of paternity” such as we have the the United States. I don’t see this language as applicable to an adoption (if indeed there ever was one). Law No. 62 lists who is an Indonesian Citizen. Most are not relevant. This one is of interest:

(1)A foreign child of less than 5 years age who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri [state court] at the residence of the person adopting the child.

However, Obama was over 5 years old when he went to Indonesia so it does not apply. Law No. 62 says nothing about a child 5 years or older acquiring citizenship.

The rather complicated Article 3 is of interest. It says that a child cannot acquire Indonesian citizenship if it would create dual citizenship unless the child is able to renounce said citizenship (which an American child is unable to do).

(1)A child outside a marriage of a mother who is a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia or a child out of a legal marriage, but who has in a case of divorce been assigned to the care of its mother, a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, who follows the nationality of the father, a foreigner, may present a petition to the Minister of Justice in order to acquire the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if, after, having acquired the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, it possesses no other nationality or states at the same time to have released another nationality according to the procedure stipulated by the legal provisions of the country of originand/or according to the procedure stipulated by the agreement on the settlement of the bi-nationality between the Republic of Indonesia and the country in question.

Of course there is no “legal provision” of the United States whereby a minor could release his US Citizenship. This is similar to 5h which also restricts citizenship to those for which it would not create dual citizenship.

h.have no nationality, or have lost his nationality if the petitioner acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia or states at the time to have released another nationality according to the legal provisions of the country of origin or according to the legal provisions of the Agreement on the settlement of the bi-nationality between the Republic of Indonesia and the country concerned.

Article 7 deals with the options for Indonesian citizenship for Obama’s mother (probably not relevant but included for reference).

Article 7.

(1)A foreign woman married to a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia, acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if and when she makes a statement as to that effect within 1 year after contracting said marriage, except in case when she acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia she possesses still another nationality, in which case the statement may not be made.

(2)With the exception as mentioned in para 1 the foreign woman who marries a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia also acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia one year after the marriage has been contracted, if within that one year her husband does not make a statement as to release his citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia.

Said statement may only be made and only results in the loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia if by such a loss the husband does not become stateless.

(3)If one of the statements mentioned in para 1 and 2 have been made, the alternative statement may not be made.

(4)The statements mentioned above shall be made to the Pengadilan Negeri or the Representation of the Republic of Indonesia at the residence of the person making such a statement.

Again, the principle of no dual citizenship prevents the acquisition of Indonesian citizenship:

Article 9.

(1)The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia acquired by a husband is automatically valid for his wife, except if, after the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia has been acquired, the wife possesses still another nationality.

(2)The loss of the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia by a husband affects automatically his wife, except if the wife will become stateless.

Next item from the lawsuit:

29. Furthermore, under the Indonesian adoption law, once an Indonesian citizen adopts a child, the adoption severs the child’s relationship to the birth parents, and the adopted child is given the same status as a natural child and the child takes the name of his step-father, in this case, Soetoro. See Indonesian Constitution, Article 2.

Following is Article 2 of the Indonesian Constitution:

Article 2

1. The Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat shall consist of the members of the Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat augmented by the delegates from the regional territories and groups as provided for by statutory regulations.

2. The Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat shall meet at least once in every five years in the capital of the state.

3. All decisions of the Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat shall be taken by a majority vote.

Doesn’t make any sense to me either. I’m beginning to think Berg is doesn’t know the difference between the Indonesian Constitution and Law No. 62 from 1958. Article 2 of Law No. 62 is quoted above and only applies to children under 5 years of age.

Next from Hollister:

30. The Indonesian citizenship law was designed to prevent apatride (stateless) or bipatride (dual) citizenship. Indonesian regulations recognized neither apatride nor bipatride (stateless or dual) citizenship. Since Indonesia did not allow dual citizenship; neither did the United States (since the United States only permitted dual citizenship when ‘both’ countries agree); and since Soetoro was a “natural” citizen of Indonesia, the United States would not step in or interfere with the laws of Indonesia. Hague Convention of 1930.

In this Berg starts correctly: Indonesian law is designed to prevent dual citizenship; however, it does so with the full acknowledgment of the laws of other nations. What Berg fails to take into consideration is the provisions of Indonesian law already in place (cited preceding) that deal with dual citizenship, and prohibiting acquisition of Indonesian citizenship in that case when dual citizenship would otherwise be created. Therefore, US Law which does not allow a minor to renounce their citizenship, in no way interferes with Indonesian law, and there’s no reason to invoke the Hague Convention. And in any case, Indonesia is not a signatory to the Hague Adoption Convention to start with.

The way the Hague Convention is interpreted by Berg seems to be “any time US law conflicts with that of another country, we lose” and that’s just plain silly.

Re: “it’s possible that Berg has been referring to sections of the Provisional Constitution not the 1945 Constitution” It appears from this that the 1945 Constitution did not address education at all – the reference to education was added by amendments after 1999.

Doc C, I agree with you that without a citation, it is impossible to verify the statement in Berg’s complaint to the effect that “All Indonesian students were required to carry government identity cards or Karty Tanda Pendudaks, as well as family card identification called a Kartu Keluarga.

It is worth noting, however, that (a) there is no such thing as a “Karty Tanda Pendudaks.” Instead, there is a “Kartu Tanda Penduduk” – which is an Indonesian identity card (similar to a drivers license) for individuals who older than 17 years old . In other words, regardless of whether students (or people) were required to carry them, the cards were only issued to people older than 17. Thus, whatever the requirements were re: KTPs, they didn’t apply to Obama when he was in Indonesia. See Indonesian Wikipedia or translated version. See also this official site

With respect to Kartu Keluarga, it appears that foreigners could not get added to an Indonesian citizen’s KK until after a designated waiting period (of 3-5 years). Therefore, if true, whatever requriements applied to KKs did not apply to Obama when he was in Indonesia either. See, e.g., this guide for ex pats living in Indonesia

One thing I don’t quite get is that the school enrollment record, revered among Birthers as a Rosetta Stone, is for the St. Fransizka (St. Francis) CATHOLIC school in which Obama was initially enrolled.

Hence, no alleged public school restrictions would apply. The notion that ex-pats in Indonesia could not have their children educated while there is simply bizarre. Of course, in this area, being surprised by the bizarre allegations and fractured logic of the Birther arguments is frequent.

Apparently, Indonesian law requires that a religion be stated on ID cards (KTP’s). Not only that, the religion must be one of only 5 officially recognized religion — someone who follows the tenets of an unlisted religion would have to choose something else. See: http://www.indonesiamatters.com/834/ktp-religion/

The 5 officially recognized religions are Islam, Protestantism, Catholicism, Hinduism and Buddhism. From the site above, there is some debate over whether a 6th religion, Confucianism, could be recognized.

Indonesian law also prohibits interfaith marriage.

As noted above, a KTP apparently is issued only to adult Indonesian citizens age 17 and above — but I think the cultural expectations at work would tend to force the wife and step-child of an Indonesian man to be listed on official documents under his religion, especially when the man had job involving work with the government during the repressive Suharto regime.

If you add to this the patriarchal tradition in both the Muslim and Catholic faiths that children are seen as too young to make their own religious choices, but derive their religious affiliation from their fathers — then it seems clear that the “religion” question on a school form in Indonesia would be answered by supplying the religion of the father.

I’d note that for the private Catholic school, there is an added reason for listing a non-Catholic religion: it is the appropriate way that parents exempt their children from possible school requirements related to the teaching and observation of Catholic tenets.

Plaintiff’s amended complaint adds nothing to the
original complaint except rhetoric and legal theory and creates
no obligation upon the defendants to respond to it. Nor is the
amended complaint responsive to defendants’ motion to dismiss
, opposition to which was due on 2/9/09. Unless points and
authorities in opposition to the motion to dismiss are filed by
2/13/09, the motion will be treated as conceded and granted. It
is SO ORDERED.

Well, Kibitzer, perhaps we shall see something tomorrow! My latest visit to the crystal ball says Berg will file a response and the judge will grant Obama’s motion to dismiss, thereby bypassing the reaming out that Berg deserves.

Senior partner of one of the most prestigous and influential law firms in Washington DC. He is a vocal critic of US foreign policy towards China, and raises funds for the Chinese Democracy Movement. Is a Washington insider and influential lobbyist on Capital Hill.”

So, using the Veterans connection to Hollister, one may easily wonder if Hemenway pretty much leant his name… but possibly by the close of court today, this case will be history (at this level anyway.. but Berg has a mortgage foreclosure to fend off, and money needs to continue, and the appeal will create more appeals for fund)

“According to someone at OC, “Lisa was pulling a all nighter to have the opposition to the Motion to Dismiss” prepared today.” Is it that complicated/time consuming to prepare this doc?”

Which begs the question, if you submitted the wrong thing last time and the judge has already shown interest in making you demonstrate your own competency, why the hell is the paralegal assistant in charge of something so important?

Berg might have thought his amended complaint would answer the motion to dismiss. Since the amendment didn’t answer the motion (according to the judge), Berg is being forced to come up with new reasons not to dismiss.

Preparing a document that is good enough to answer Obama’s lawyer is, I would think, a very difficult proposition. No?

I just got off the phone with a man name Kiko Ratmansunu at the Indonesian Embassy in Washington, DC. He told me in no uncertain terms that President Obama was NOT nor ever has been a citizen of Indonesia. He also told me I could quote him.

Respectfully, our laws are similar to yours, so i can safely say Obama was unlikely to have been adopted. Obama did not meet Mr Soetoro until he was 6years & only stayed with them for a few years (i believe less than 4years), adpotions dont just happen in 3rd world its takes time probably several years. by laws of Indonesia only children below 5years CAN be adopted. See Constitution of Republic of Indonesia (Undang-Undang Dasar Republik Indonesia 1945), Chapter 13, Law No. 62 of 1958

Law No. 62 lists who is an Indonesian Citizen.. This one is of interest:

(1)A foreign child of less than 5 years age who is adopted by a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia acquires the citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia, if such an adoption is declared legal by the Pengadilan Negeri [state court] at the residence of the person adopting the child.

However, Obama was over 5 years old when he went to Indonesia so it does not apply. Law No. 62 says nothing about a child 5 years or older acquiring citizenship.

Obama would have had to be LESS than 5 years to be adpoted & became an indonesian Citizen.”
==============

“Respectfully, sir, that may be true but it would have been seriously ILLEGAL for Barry to attend school in Indonesia (in 1967) if he was NOT legally the son of Lolo Soeotoro, and Indonesian citizen. So, for Ann, Lolo & Barry to have perpetrated a fraud IN Indonesia would have been very risky and a serious crime. The alternative would have been that Lolo adopted Barry IN the US (where no such age restrictions would have existed)….”

Mimi, i thereafter asked for proof that foreigners werent allowed into such schools ? which so far no one has answered !!!

I am an attorney (we mostly say lawyers but since i’m posting on a US issue i’m using the term most commonly used there), i qualified in 2000 & have been in active pratise since running my own small law firm. I am discussing at OC (i registered here first b4 going there) about legal, I AM an OBOT as most Africans are but i’m very much interested in the legal arguements as my son was born last year in the Us & my wife & I are fully Nigerian Citizens.
I dont expect my son 2 run 4 POTUS for i very much want 2 know his rights as a citizen, he’s however automatically a Nigeria citizen by virtue of our laws, & allow i have 2 do 2 get him a Nig passport 2 just take him there, no oath nothing. He remains entitled to his Nig citizen no matter were he goes, so i’m very interested in this issues.

myson, the folks at ObamaCrimes aren’t interested in facts. And, if you call yourself an Obot there, you will be banned from the site.

There are quite a few lawyers who comment here, as well as over at the polijab site. You’ll get to know them.

I learn from them every day. I believe the issues before us are new to everyone.

You will find that both here as well as at polijab, they cite the law and/or source the document to which they are referring, if at all possible. The “birther” sites, like OC, do not. They make it up as they go along.

I have read about this consepiracy pple & i just cant believe how they think, it would seem ‘perfectly’ reasonable pple lose all reason immediately the POTUS they dont like wins. They’re tieing themselves in2 more knolts than the scout teach. its actually only Tanarg i care about on that site as she/he seem to reason properly sometimes but her/his blind dislike for P Obama allows her to entertain any wild theory put forth. Berg is responsilbe for mis informing alot of pple & not properly counselling his clients & fans. Orly i dont believe is a lawyer so anything she says is just plain rubbish.
Any1 know what happened to Obamahub.com, it used to a place i visit. as well as some of the other good website they dont seem 2 update themselves again.
My wife is upset that i’ve been following thsi issue for so long & now his in as POTUS i’m still facinated but i remember something that Dr Conspiracy wrote about been obsess & facinated with the debate esp since one knows the Birther cannot. Since late Oct 2008 that i read i think on ‘whats your evidence. com’ or something like that i had known if wins , we will be confirmed no matter the opposition as the Birther simply have no evidence . Interestingly even the legislator they’ve recruited do not have standing (No injury). I would even argue that Clinton or McCain dont have standing on the eligibility issue as the werent defeated because of Obama claim, they were defeated in an open election, they can bring it up 2 Obama before the electorate but not in Court. It is Congress that qualifies a POTUS, so only the cogress can determine the issue (they are also the ones who define who a citizen is), so immediately they accept the result of the EC as valid Obama met the NBC (if the question even existed)

Re: A fax on embassy letterhead would be ideal! Emails are trivial to forge. (Faxes are too, but they are more impressive.) I am sending you my fax number in email if you want to use it.

Considering this, I think the best way is simply to go to every site (or most sites) that claims that Obama became an Indonesian citizen, say that this is wrong because you or I called the Indonesian Embassy and they told us, then give the telephone number of the Embassy, which is (202) 775 – 5200, and say that they can confirm if they call themselves.

Yet we know that Obama was never an Indonesian citizen and that his parents never applied. How do we know? I called (and others have to and confirmed)the Indonesian Embassy in Washington, which said that he was never a citizen of Indonesia.

You can check by calling: (202) 775 – 5200. I’d ask for the press officer.

As for Soetoro having adopted Obama legally. We should remember that at the time we are discussing Obama’s birth father was still alive. Not only was it difficult to adopt someone under Indonesia law, it would have been virtually impossible to do so with the father still alive (and unlikely that Stanley Ann would have allowed it in any case).

And, of course, it would be impossible to adopt Obama under US law with the father still alive.

I would add one thing to the information provided. You claims that a minor cannot renounce his or her US citizenship. That is not accurate. However, I do not believe that when Barack Obama lived in Indonesia he would have been able to fulfil the requirements to do so. That is, at the age of 6, I do not believe that he would have been able to ‘convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.’ I sincerely doubt that a 6 year old could manage to convince a US official that they were aware of the ramifications of the renunciation … or even that they understood what the word “renounce” means.

Your point is well taken. I’m familiar with the material you’re referring to. I’ve read other “official sources” that read the other way. As you point out, a six-year-old couldn’t meet the criteria. I think that no minor could actually meet the criteria.

I have to walk a thin line between saying everything that could be said for completeness, and confusing people with ultimately irrelevant information.

Maybe the issue here is to define ‘minor’, is less than 16yrs old or is it 18yrs ?
I think i read somewhere that a 16yrs old girl(i think 16 is still a girl) was allowed to renounce her US citizenship.
Still 16 & 6 are not the same i would think & wont be traeted the same way !!

A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:

1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
3. sign an oath of renunciation

Parents cannot renounce U.S. citizenship on behalf of their minor children. Before an oath of renunciation will be administered under Section 349(a)(5) of the INA, a person under the age of eighteen must convince a U.S. diplomatic or consular officer that he/she fully understands the nature and consequences of the oath of renunciation, is not subject to duress or undue influence, and is voluntarily seeking to renounce his/her U.S. citizenship.

(Section 351(b) of the INA provides that an applicant who renounced his or her U.S. citizenship before the age of eighteen can have that citizenship reinstated if he or she makes that desire known to the Department of State within six months after attaining the age of eighteen. See also Title 22, Code of Federal Regulations, section 50.20).

So basically: a smart and sophisticated minor can renounce citizenship, but its hard to do and it they can change their mind and get it back later on.

Also:

A person who wants to renounce U.S. citizenship cannot decide to retain some of the privileges of citizenship, as this would be logically inconsistent with the concept of renunciation. Thus, such a person can be said to lack a full understanding of renouncing citizenship and/or lack the necessary intent to renounce citizenship, and the Department of State will not approve a loss of citizenship in such instances.

A desire to return to reside in the US at some future time is deemed to be inconsistent with renunciation [Colon v. U.S. Department of State , 2 F.Supp.2d 43 (1998)]. So little Barry’s desire to return to Hawaii to attend Punahou School and live with his grandparents would manifeest an inconsistent intent that would prevent renunciation.

As a practical matter, I would assume that a person renunciation US Citizenship would be required to surrender their passport, thereby making it impossible to return to the US in the future without obtaining a visa. So its not like little Barry, having decided to renounce his US citizenship, could just hop on a plane bound for Honolulu later on.

Also, I’m sure everyone recalls that during the primary campaign, the Clinton campaign did a thorough background check on Obama’s Indonesian school days, and discovered that little Barry wrote an essay announcing his Presidential candidacy while still in Kindergarten. Certainly if he were sophisticated enough to understand the full implications of renunciation of citizenship, he would have realized immediately that it was a bad idea in light of his Presidential aspirations.

In any case, in light of the rules outlined above, I am sure that a consular official interviewing young Barry would have found his ambitions to be inconsistent and refused his renunciation on that ground alone.

Actually i think Obama has done plenty to indicate the US was/is his home, so all the birthers have is there guess work.
Just reading Leo Don blog & he’s convinced that Obama has the BC issue covered & is somewhat angry that the focus is on the issue instaed of dual nationalities, if only the constitution has been more explicit, this would sorted in an instant.

Question : as much as the birthers want the definition of NBC to aline with blood & soil, isnt it life that definition of things change & we adapt to changes too by changing our laws to reflect it ??
It would seem to me, without definition changing Black generally wouldnt be citizens of the US today !

I hate to bring this up again but I have a question after reading the Indonesian law you linked to:

Article 13 (2)
The citizenship of the Republic of Indonesia acquired by a mother also applies to her children who have no legal family relationship with the father, who have not reached the age of 18 and are not married yet after they have resided and are in Indonesia. …

Obama’s mother did not become an Indonesian citizen. Hence the section does not apply.

Even if she had become an Indonesian citizen, and even if Barack had become an Indonesian citizen (although I still think that’s impossible), he would still be a natural born citizen of the United States by the decision of the Supreme Court in Perkins v Elg.

When you say Obama’s mother did not become and Indonesian citizen, what is your factual basis?

If you do not support the assertion with facts but rather theory, please make that clear.

I have no set position on this issue, but I haven’t been able to verify if his mother did or did not become an Indonesian citizen. Although, considering she spent so many years there, I don’t know how she would have spent continuous years there without having become a citizen.

Hey guys, I’m writing a paper on all of this and I’m just trying to figure out if there’s any paper trail or any direct documentary proof that his mother never became an Indonesian citizen. I’m not taking sides. I’m not saying she did become an Indonesian citizen. So please don’t put word in my mouth.

But I think it’s a fair question to ask since many people who get married to a foreigner and move to his nation become citizens of the nation where they reside. Certainly not all people do, but many do.

Stanley Ann resided in Indonesia with her husband Lolo for years after their marriage. It’s a legit question.

Bob said:

“She was born an American citizen, and there’s no evidence to suggest she ever became an Indonesian citizen.”

Marrying an Indonesian citizen then moving there does cause me to wonder if she became a citizen of that nation. I do not see how your response conclusively establishes she did not become an Indonesiain citizen.

I am asking a question not making an assertion either way.

Bob also said:

“This is burden shifting; the correct question is: What is your factual basis for saying that Obama’s mother became an Indonesian citizen?”

I am NOT saying she did become an Indonesian citizen. Not shifting any burden. I’m asking, since she married an Indonesian National and moved to Indonesia, raised children and worked there for many years – whether she did become an Indonesian citizen. I think it’s a fair question to ask.

Dr. Conspiracy said that she did not become an Indonesian citizen. For my paper, I was hoping he would provide something which established that to which I could point and scratch that off my list of topics to discuss.

If I present a paper which does not conclusively establish its conclusions, I will not be doing a good job.

So, again, if anybody has any documentary evidence she did not become an Indonesian citizen, please present a link to it.

Bob, I didn’t say anything about eligibility and I’m not saying any of this matters to eligibility. I’m just trying to establish a fact or if no fact exists then I need to state that no fact exists.

NBC said:

“Ever heard of the green card which makes you a resident but not a citizen in the US?
Do some research…

Or do you have any evidence that she did in fact become an indonesian citizen?”

I have heard of a green card. Did she have one for Indonesia? Perhaps I’ve missed that fact that? Is that what Dr. Conspiracy was making reference to?

Is there an Indonesian green card for her or an applications for the same? Please provide if I’ve missed that in my research. If so, I apologize for wasting time here.

Also, NBC, let me reiterate, I do not make the claim that his mother was an Indonesian citizen. I read a comment here that made an assertion and I have been trying to establish the truth of the assertion made for a paper I am writing. I was hoping to get conclusive evidence of that assertion:

that she is NOT an Indonesian citizen, not that she is.

So far, this factfinding mission has failed. I am hoping to that will change with responses to this comment.

I’m just trying to figure out if there’s any paper trail or any direct documentary proof that his mother never became an Indonesian citizen.

Disproving a negative is difficult to do. Is there any proof that Obama’s mother (or anyone in the Obama clan) was not a citizen of Mars?

But I think it’s a fair question to ask since many people who get married to a foreigner and move to his nation become citizens of the nation where they reside.

And many don’t, especially if they have to renounce their American citizenship to do so. So while the question may be “fair,” it isn’t probable that is what actually occurred.

Your best bet would be to research Indonesian immigration records. No one here has done that (or likely will do that), as it is enough work as it is disproving the crazy eligibility hypotheses without having to also do the research to support these hypotheses.

alcot wrote: “But I think it’s a fair question to ask since many people who get married to a foreigner and move to his nation become citizens of the nation where they reside.”

If you accept remote plausibility as the criteria for what gets included in your paper, and you apply that criteria objectively, then your paper will approach infinite size and will take longer than you will live to finish.

Fact 7. Under Indonesian Law you can not adopt a child over the age of five, even abroad, if you are an Indonesian Citizen. In “Dreams from my Father”, Obama says he lived with his step-father in Indonesia for five years and that by the time he and his mother arrived in Indonesia she and Lolo had been married for over a year before Lolo returned to Indonesia. Five years + one year = 6 years and when Barack Hussein Obama II returned to Hawaii prior to September of 1971 because he was enrolled in his Prep School in Hawaii to start the Fifth Grade he was 10 years old so he was probably shy of 4 years old when Dunham married Soetoro and arrived in Indonesia about the time of his fifth Birthday (1966).

Fact 8. Indonesian Law says: “Foreign persons under age of five who are adopted by Indonesian Citizens obtain Indonesian Citizenship following legalization of adoption process by District Court of general jurisdiction with jurisdiction over the adoptive parents [Id at Art. 2 (1)]“ “It is stipulated that an adopted child has the same status as a natural child, and that his or her relationship to the birth parents is severed by adoption”.

Fact 9. The only Legal Relationship he would have to his mother is that she was married to his Legal Father Lolo Soetoro, under Indonesian Law. He would be an Indonesian Citizen with an Indonesian Passport and an entry in Lolo’s KK documents.

Fact 10. Indonesian Law prior to August 1966 would be Indonesian Law 62/1958 and other prior Indonesian Laws. Indonesian Law does not accept Dual Nationality/Citizenship, so Barack Hussein Obama II would no longer be a US Citizen according to Indonesian Law, in fact he would be considered never to have been one at all.

Fact 11. Lolo Soetoro would be his guardian, next of Kin and father. His Religion would be Legally Listed and Registered as Islam because children have the Religion of their Father under Indonesian Law and can have no other. His Surname would become Soetoro, in full Soetoro Mangunharjo with Barry as his given name at the choosing by his father Lolo.

Fact 12. Barry Soetoro was enrolled on January 1st 1968, given Serial No 203 and placed in Class 1 B. His Religion is given as Islam, his Nationality Indonesian, his Father’s Name as L Soetoro Ma., his Father’s Occupation as Official, Director General’s Office TNI [Topography Division Indonesian Army] and his Name as Barry Soetoro.

Fact 13. Only citizen Indonesian children were enrolled in Indonesian Schools in 1968, SD Asisi was a Roman Catholic School within the Indonesian State System, it was not an International School. Therefore, if he attended this school and subsequently SDN Menteng 1, State Elementary School, and every source agrees that this is the case, he would have to have been enrolled as an Indonesian Citizen.

Fact 14. All records show that Lolo Soetoro Ma. is described as his father and that no mention is made of his mother.

Fact 15. Indonesia in the sixties was a Police State! Everybody, even babes, had Identity Documents of some sort, possibly including Passports. Everybody was registered with the Government, one way or another. The head of each family, usually the father, but in rare cases a widowed, or divorced, mother has an Official Document called a Kartu Keluarga (Family Card). This lists every household/family member and gives their details in the same way as their individual KTPs or KITAS visas would.

Fact 16. An adopted, child called a WNI, warga negara Indonesia, has the same KK entry as any other Indonesian child. When a child enrolls in School their details are taken down from their KK Entry, as presented by the father (who is also required, at that time, to produce his KTP to verify the details on the KK). They are then given their Student KTP. KKs, like KTPs, are issued by the Government and cross checked by the National Police and Immigration Service.

Fact 17. Everything on Barry Soetoro record’s at SD Asisi matches what would be true if he was adopted by Lolo Soetoro before he arrived in Indonesia. Schools are subject to periodical checks by both the Police and Immigration Officers as well as School Inspectors; this includes the teachers as well as the students.

Funny how these birther fact checks always give legal priority to whatever male seems to be around Barack. I find this comical, sad, mysoginistic and disingenuous. Every one of these silly facts dismisses Ann Dunham as if she were some piece of property. That’s the thing that is so pathetic about birthers: they live in some long-gone era where the women are simply chattel. Seriously, Sven, the only legal relationship Barack had to his mother after she married Soetoro was that she was Soetoro’s wife? Ridiculous. The fact remains, birther have yet to provide any proof that Soetoro was ever considered Barack’s “Legal Father”. It’s a far-fetched notion, considering his father was alive and well at the time. You people need to fricking grow up and move into the 21st century; your 1850s views of the world, particularly of women and non-whites, are obnoxious and bear no legal weight.

It’s universally easier to prove a positive than a negative. For example, I can prove that I’ve eaten at McDonald’s by showing you a receipt from the restaurant. I can only prove that I’ve never eaten at McDonald’s by showing you a receipt from every meal I’ve ever eaten and demonstrate that none of them are from McDonald’s. And, that really only proves that I’ve never paid for it. Maybe someone else bought me a Happy Meal.

But, some things we can prove, or at least prove to a reasonable certainty, but theorizing about what evidence there would be if our condition existed and look for that evidence. A failure to find such evidence shows that it is unlikely that such a thing existed.

What evidence would we expect to see if dragons existed? Do we find any of that evidence? No? Then it’s reasonably certain that dragons don’t exist. We haven’t conclusively proven that they don’t exist, because we haven’t seen every animal that exists and classified it as either dragon or not dragon, but it’s unlikely.

If Obama’s mother became an Indonesian citizen, we’d expect to see evidence of a formal renunciation of US citizenship, because Indonesia required that to adopt their citizenship. We’d expect his mother to have trouble returning to the US, she’d have to get an entry Visa, because she would have had to renounce her US citizenship.

We don’t see any of that evidence. Is it “conclusive” proof that she’s not a citizen of Indonesia? No, because someone could have destroyed all the evidence. But, until we interview all 6 billion people on the planet, and perhaps not even then, we won’t be able to confirm that none of them destroyed the evidence.

What positive proof do you want that she did not do something? Why don’t you figure out what evidence would be acceptable to prove this negative.

I think it’s funny how they use the stuff they know for certain and distort the rest. A child cannot be adopted if they’re five or above, so Obama must have been adopted before August 4, 1966, even though his mother graduated from the University of Hawaii in 1967 and moved to Indonesia that year. And students MUST have been Indonesian in order to attend school because, well, that’s the only way that Obama’s attending school in Indonesia supports their theory. And he must have lost his US citizensip, despite clear Supreme Court precedent that says that children cannot lose their citizenship because of the actions of their parents, because, again, otherwise being adopted by an Indonesian wouldn’t help their theory.

And they’re all practically wetting themselves over at rsol about an article that mistakenly said Obama was born in Indonesia. Like I said before, birthers suffer greatly from the want of a leader to say, “folks, we have a theory and we’re sticking to it”. No matter what the theory is, pick the best one and stick with it. Birthers make fools of themselves chasing hither and thither that next shred of yummy birther craziness, like ” He was born in Indonesia, a paper one time said so”. Rsol is clearly not that leader as it prints anything and everything as if it’s all true.

Furthermore, per international law recognized in the United States, a child’s parents cannot abandon a child’s birthright citizenship and the child when reaching the age of majority can continue his elected birthright citizenship.

Birthers are manipulated by the neocons to help them do anything and everything to discredit, disrupt and distract the Obama Administration. Birtherism is only one prong of their attack on Pres Obama. Don’t forget the seeds of birtherism were first planted by an aide to Mary Matalin, one of the necons’ neocons. The birthers drive home any theory that they think makes Pres Obama seem less American, more foreign, less trustworthy. The name of the game with birtherism is to sow the seeds of doubt.

I’d point out that the paper printed a correction the following week; also, the mistaken report that Obama was “born in Indonesia” was published many years after Obama’s own autobiography describing his Hawaiian birth and (more importantly) his mother’s remarriage and the family relocation to Indonesia when Obama was age 6.

Logically, there would have been no means nor reason for the mother to be Indonesia as a teenager, many years before she was to meet and marry an Indonesian man — and it is unlikely choice to visit as a tourist near the time of Obama’s birth, given the political situation in Indonesia in the early 1960’s.

But it fits within the birther “frame” of renaming Obama after his stepfather, Soetero…. hence they are as happy to jump on that fiction as any other.

Again, you are so right Kimba. Most people I talk to in my conservative environment are dismisive of the claims of the birthers. We do not know yet how this will turn out because as you say they have planted seeds of doubt. They are also playing a dangerous game. When I married my husband in 1970 my dad told us “prepare your children to live in a brown world.” It was not a value judgement on his part. He just saw the future. Evidentally, the Matalins and their ilk are willing to play on the fears of some and thus risk the future for all of us. Why? An amoral perspective perhaps? I don’t know.

Uhhh, no. Most likely, a 10-year-old named Barry Soetoro flew to the US from Indonesia as a Indonesian refugee with an escort from an NGO assisting him with his travel and clearing customs.

As an Indonesian refugee living with his grandmother as guardian, Barry was vulnerable to having his African, paternal father showing up and claiming his parental rights. Consequently, “Toot” cooked up a scheme to fly BO Sr. back to Hawaii from Kenya for his 10-year Reunion at U of H. In return for flying him to Hawaii, Toot asked BO Sr to appear in Family Court to assert his parental rights to void the Soetoro adoption and agree to have grandma Toot named Barry Obama’s legal guardian.

No, most likely, Barack Obama used his time machine to travel back in time and forged his own birth documents. As we know from Orly’s research, any relative, no matter how violative of the space-time continuum, can attest to a birth. And the supposed step-father? Never happened. Obama used his time machine to fake that as well, in order to have foreign policy cred without actually having it – thus enabling him to beat McCain but still be pliable for his masters in Kenya.

“If you accept remote plausibility as the criteria for what gets included in your paper, and you apply that criteria objectively, then your paper will approach infinite size and will take longer than you will live to finish.”

I was hoping you had documentary proof I could use for my paper. The woman married an Indonesian man, moved there with him, lived and worked there for much of her adult life, gave birth to his child there in Indonesia, stayed there after divorcing him…

That is not a “remotely plausible” conclusion. It’s a reasonable conclusion which an objective paper must address.

But at least you’ve admitted it was plausible which is a big step beyond your previous statement alleging your conclusion was fact.

You’ve answered my question.

Geez, you’re just as bad as the birthers. No sense of objectivity whatsoever.

“If Obama’s mother became an Indonesian citizen, we’d expect to see evidence of a formal renunciation of US citizenship, because Indonesia required that to adopt their citizenship. We’d expect his mother to have trouble returning to the US, she’d have to get an entry Visa, because she would have had to renounce her US citizenship.

We don’t see any of that evidence. Is it “conclusive” proof that she’s not a citizen of Indonesia? No, because someone could have destroyed all the evidence. But, until we interview all 6 billion people on the planet, and perhaps not even then, we won’t be able to confirm that none of them destroyed the evidence.

What positive proof do you want that she did not do something? Why don’t you figure out what evidence would be acceptable to prove this negative.”

Who said the evidence was destroyed? Is that what you are saying happened? I don’t understand. We aren’t entitled to see any of the above. It would be in personal files.

I guess we just don’t know and will never really know.

Anyway, thanks for all who participated in the discussion. You’ve helped me clear up Dr. C’s statement. I thought he was making reference to conclusive proof to counter all of her bio info which indicates she could have been an Indonesian citizen. He has let me know he has access to no such proof but is making a theoretical guess.

I understand the ideas presented. As stated, I haven’t taken a position either way. Doing so was not the purpose of my paper. The purpose was to present the issue of whether the issue has been proved by documentary evidence. It has not been proved either way.

I’m saying that to conclusively prove a negative, that someone wasn’t ever a citizen, you’d need to prove:

A) That the documentation of this person becoming a citizen does not now exist; and,

B) That the documentation never existed.

You’d need the same sort of evidence whether you’re talking Indonesia, or Timbuktu, or Mars.

What sort of documentation do YOU think exists that could conclusively prove this negative? A statement by someone in the Indonesian government that they’d reviewed the records and found that Ann never became a citizen? That only proves A, above. Maybe the documents existed at one time but, for whatever reason, don’t now.

“I guess we just don’t know and will never really know.”

It’s all in the definition of the word “know.” We will never know that Ann wasn’t a citizen of Mars. But we can know that it is highly unlikely. We don’t know that Ann wasn’t a citizen of Indonesia, because there can exist no positive documentary proof that proves this negative. But, we do know that it is highly unlikely.

There is no documentation of her formally renouncing her US citizenship, which would be required to adopt Indonesian citizenship. And it is highly unlikely that such documentation would not exist if she had renounced her citizenship.

There is no documentation of her entering or leaving the country as an alien in the 70s or 80s, when she came back to Hawaii to get her masters, then her PhD. When she went back to Indonesia to do her fieldwork, her children saw her on Christmas and school breaks. There is no evidence that any of these visits required a visa. It is highly unlikely that such evidence would not exist if she were an Indonesian citizen.

There is no documentation of her entering the country as an alien in 1995 when she returned for her last medical care. It is highly unlikely that such documentation would not exist if she had adopted Indonesian citizenship.

There is no documentation that suggests she was employed as a foreigner when she worked for the United States Agency for International Development. (USAID is forbidden to hire non-citizens directly, but can hire them as contractors.) It is highly unlikely that such documentation would not exist if she was an Indonesian citizen.

If we were to do a more extensive search of her records, we’d probably find more indications of a lack of evidence that she was Indonesian. Her estate was probated, one presumes, in Hawaii, with no record of any probate issues unique to Indonesian citizens.

In short, there is a comprehensive lack of evidence where one would expect to see it if she was a citizen of Indonesia.

We can’t know that the sun wasn’t, at some distant time in the past, really just a ball of yellow paint. We can, however, think about what evidence we’d look for if, in fact, the sun was, at some distant time in teh past, really just a ball of yellow paint. If we figure out what that evidence is, then determine that it simply does not exist, we don’t know that it wasn’t, but we do know to a reasonable certainty that it wasn’t.

When S. Ann Soetoro returned to the United States in the early seventies, she did so as an Indonesian citizen in the U.S. on a Student Visa.

Fact 10) via DefendUSx: Indonesian Law prior to August 1966 would be Indonesian Law 62/1958 and other prior Indonesian Laws. Indonesian Law does not accept Dual Nationality/Citizenship.

Fact 15) via DefendUSx: Indonesia in the sixties was a Police State! Everybody, even babes, had Identity Documents of some sort, possibly including Passports. Everybody was registered with the Government, one way or another. The head of each family, usually the father, but in rare cases a widowed, or divorced, mother has an Official Document called a Kartu Keluarga (Family Card). This lists every household/family member and gives their details in the same way as their individual KTPs or KITAS visas would.

It was a turbulent time in the late 60’s and early 70’s. S. Ann probably considered it very avant garde to renounce her US Citizenship. When she married Lolo, she had no idea her marriage would end in divorce. To live with him in Indonesia, it was a requirement to give up her US Citizenship.

Unless Barry asserted his claim to US Citizenship before he turned 18 and a half, his US citizenship would be lost. And if he did assert his claim as per US statute, then he would lose the scholarships reserved for foreign nationals at some of the most prestigious universities in America. Also, re-establishing his US Citizenship before turning 18 and a half by US statute means he is a US citizen and not a natural born citizen.

S. Ann probably considered it very avant garde to renounce her US Citizenship.

There’s no evidence that she renounced her citizenship.

To live with him in Indonesia, it was a requirement to give up her US Citizenship.

There’s no evidence of this. Prior to 1974, marriage law in Indonesia was a complex mix of Dutch colonial rule, local (or adat) law, and religious, mainly Islamic rule. There were at least 19 distinct adat sub-groups. Indonesian law prior to 1974 recognized what were called “mixed marriages” where the husband and wife were governed by one of the different legal rule-sets. This included native citizens and foreigners. The nationality act of 1958 did not require spouses to take the citizenship of the citizen-spouse, but allowed women to take their husband’s nationality if she declared her intention within one year. Ann Dunham was still in Hawaii when she would have had to declare her intention to renounce her US citizenship and take up Indonesian citizenship!

Unless Barry asserted his claim to US Citizenship before he turned 18 and a half, his US citizenship would be lost.

Not true. The actions of a parent do not affect the actions of a minor incapable of making an informed choice of foreign citizenship. As the State Deparment notes, “a person who is automatically granted another citizenship does not risk losing U.S. citizenship.”

And if he did assert his claim as per US statute, then he would lose the scholarships reserved for foreign nationals at some of the most prestigious universities in America.

He returned to the United States at age 10. There is no evidence that he applied for any such scholarships. There is no evidence that he considered himself Indonesian. There is no evidence that his white grandparents would have allowed him to apply as a foreign national.

Also, re-establishing his US Citizenship before turning 18 and a half by US statute means he is a US citizen and not a natural born citizen.

As there was no requirement that he do this, and he did not lose his US citizenship, he remains a natural born citizen!

Unless Barry asserted his claim to US Citizenship before he turned 18 and a half, his US citizenship would be lost. And if he did assert his claim as per US statute, then he would lose the scholarships reserved for foreign nationals at some of the most prestigious universities in America. Also, re-establishing his US Citizenship before turning 18 and a half by US statute means he is a US citizen and not a natural born citizen.

You are wrong: Obama by US common and municipal law would not have to elect his birthright citizenship other than by showing intention to retain it. Since he returned and remained in the US since age 9(?) he remained his US citizenship and remains a natural born status.

Nice try but the facts, as usual seem to be at odds with your imagination.

Fact 13. Only citizen Indonesian children were enrolled in Indonesian Schools in 1968, SD Asisi was a Roman Catholic School within the Indonesian State System, it was not an International School. Therefore, if he attended this school and subsequently SDN Menteng 1, State Elementary School, and every source agrees that this is the case, he would have to have been enrolled as an Indonesian Citizen.

Has anyone noticed that no birhter has actually linked us to the Indonesian statute in the 1960’s that states that a child must be an Indonesian citizen in order to be enrolled in school? I am not saying that this is not true but we have never actually seen the law that states that. Secondly this so called school document does also state that President Obama’s place of birth was Honolulu, HI. So if we are to believe that the supposed school registation form is accurate, then all of it must be accurate. Including the place of birth. You notice how the birthers usually forget to mention that piece of information when they bring up and discuss the infamous school registration.

Alcot describes Stanley Ann Dunham’s becoming an Indonesian citizen as a “reasonable conclusion”. However, the lack of such information in any published biographical source keeps it as nothing more than “remotely plausible”.

You say that she spent “much of her adult life” in Indonesia, however, since she died at 52, that time in Indonesia is misleading as relates to her total life. She returned to the US for her PhD, for example. And when diagnosed with Cancer, it was the US where she chose to live her final days.

It would be an error in thinking to say (in general) that if there is no conclusive evidence one way or another, that either conclusion is equally likely. Some things, like an American renouncing their citizenship, are inherently unlikely, as is such a thing going unnoticed.

However as to proof, that will be certainly forthcoming from the FOIA requests for Stanley Ann Dunham’s passport records. Passport renewals (or the lack thereof) will prove her citizenship status.

As Dr. C has pointed out, some of this will be resolved when the passport records of Obama’s mother come to light.

I’m a bit surprised that none of the investigators for the birthers seem to have looked into voter registration records. If Obama’s mother maintained her Hawaii voter registration and voted by absentee ballot during her years in Indonesia, it would conclusively establish that she never renounced her U.S. citizenship. Likewise, given Obama’s stated interest in politics when he was young, it seems likely that he would have voted in the 1980 presidential election, when he was 19. His voter registration records would conclusively establish that he was a U.S. citizen.

Of course, it is possible that the birthers already checked this out and didn’t like what they found.

It is also possible that he was enrolled in the catholic school since he was unable to enroll in the public school-yet.

Welcome

Obama Conspiracy Theories since 2008 has been your des­tination for conspiracy theories and fringe views about Barack Obama. Having an argu­ment with your buddies at the office? You're in the right place. Use the Search box below or check out our featured articles. If you don't agree with what you see, feel free to add your thoughts to the over 250,000 comments others have left. To leave a comment not on the current articles, visit the Open Thread.

Quote of the day

Conspiracies

Conspiracies

Sometimes people leave comments designed to offend or outrage the reader, and invoke a firestorm of protest in response. These are the Internet trolls. Replying to them is feeding them and they will come back for more. Refusing to play their game encourages them to go away.